A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Answer to Anonymous in Aurora

Some posts reveal just how far our people have fallen due to the failure of priests and bishops in catechetical, scriptural and ecclesiastical teaching. The Sad State of Affairs in Aurora extends far beyond the ecclesiastical-sacramental and collection plate irregularities. The seriousness of these issues are appropriate for the Church to deal with and not petitions of the people or letters to the editor or online. Failure of years of homiletics, liturgy and catechesis has corrupted and failed to correct the thinking and understanding of many members of this parish and others on what it means to be a Catholic and to think, like a Catholic.

A pastor has two responsibilities in life -- to get his soul to heaven and the souls of his flock. If a pastor has formed one to think and believe in a manner as you will read below, then he may have much to answer for. Deformed thinking comes from malformed faith. It is deadly to the person, their families and the broader culture. Those responsible for teaching heresy, mistruths and erroneous opinion and engaging in liturgical abuses could well end up in Hell. Notwithstanding certain heresies and opinions of some fairly prominent theologians and clerics, we do not have a "reasonable hope" that Hell is empty and that most or all are saved, they are not. There is a Hell and those who don't believe it will find out when they get there. 

I am being harsh to WAKE  YOU UP. Time is short, the world is burning and it is going to get worse. Your time is short, so is mine.  

I've written previously and will do so again that it is not me with whom you should be angry. You should be directing it to those who taught you wrongly and failed to teach you how to think and discern truth from lies, good from evil, wrong from right. You write of "love," whatever you mean by love, but do not write of faith or truth. You whine about "feelings" but you cannot articulate fact. Faith is not about feelings. It is about Truth and His name is Jesus Christ!

So, let our catechesis begin.

Anonymous said...
Where does your condemnation end? You could go back much further in the history of the Church to find offences much greater than that of which you speak. The Catholic Church has a very dark history that I'm sure you are very aware of. I am worried/sad for you because of the hate that you cause others to feel. Whether it be directed at people who you feel have sinned, or directed at you for your sensationalist views. You can quote the bible all you want, and that is your right. However, I challenge you to find anything in there about Jesus saying that homosexuality is a sin. Here I mean a very clearly stated quote, and not a piece that can be construed in any number of ways. Also, as far as the practice of marriage goes, I assume you are a aware that the Catholic Church (not God, Jesus or otherwise) decided that this should become a sacrament in the medieval times. Who are you, or I or anyone else to say what constitutes a holy, sanctified marriage? If you were truly a Godly person as you claim to be (and for the record I am not saying that you aren't) I cannot understand how love is not the focus of your writing. People make mistakes, people sin, people are not perfect, but who are we if we cannot accept them and help them to the best of our ability? Who are we to condemn? Saturday, 7 February 2015 at 21:38:00 GMT-5 
And.
Anonymous said...





Shall we unpack these?

1.0: My condemnation of evil and those who undermine truth and liturgical prayer will end, God-willing, with my last breath and the words, "Jesus have mercy upon me a sinner," may I have that grace! I hope to be welcomed with "Well done, good and faithful servant you have been faithful with few things" but I expect I will have a millenium or two or more in purgatory. There, I go quoting scripture again and Catholic dogma which seems to be an issue for you. 

1.1: You seem to be a member of this parish. Perhaps you should show your anger over what happened 25 years ago, since you mention a "dark history" in the Church proper. Please tell us what other examples of this so-called "dark history" you accuse the Church of committing, real dark history, not the revisionist history of the Muslim Brotherhood lackey Obama's view of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Please, be specific about the greatest force of good in human history, rather than some canard which simply did not exist.

2.0: I hate no person, though admittedly, it comes close with Obama (and don't even think that I am a racist, the better-half of the Vox, the Fox; is South African!) I do hate the Islamo-fascist movement that is wiping out Christians and setting the world aflame - I hate the false religion founded by a murderous peodophile and denier of Christ; I hate the sodomite-fascist movement that is undermining the culture, the family and going after our youth by convincing them that it is "cool to be gay" and the Church is wrong (been to a school lately?) I hate the pervert movement epitomised by the child porn aficionado and former bishop Raymond Lahey masturbating to the images of naked boys on his laptop computer. I hate the pathetic and perverted actions of child pornographer Bernard Levin whose work still influences lesbian Kathleen Wynne and her intent to corrupt children with unacceptably blatant sex education in our schools. I hate abortion which kills babies and hurts women and proclaims choice without ever describing the choice - murder of the innocent. I hate the movement to kill our elderly and infirm (yes, it will go that far) through the Supreme Court of Canada, I hate all of these and you should too. On all of these, it is the fault of Catholics, bishops, priests and laity. We are 40% of Canada's population. If we lived our faith we would change our country overnight. As for me, "Truly, I know my sins, they are always before me."

3.0: Are you judging and "condemning" me for "quoting the Bible?" If so, then you are playing right into the hands of Protestants, now and in history, with their "Catholics don't read the Bible" mantra. 

4.o: You challenged me to "to find anything there (in the Bible) by Jesus saying that homosexuality is a sin ... a clearly stated quote ... not construed" 

4.1: I imagine the question of sodomy is raised because I mentioned it in the original post. I proffered that the filthy, degrading history of a pastor and associate pastor decades ago has left a darkened spirit in the parish. That abomination released a devil in the parish yet to be exorcised. Demons occupy space and geography, not just people. 

4.2: Your comments reflect a nihilistic, relativist, modernist and politically-correct view of marriage, divorce and the condition of homosexuality. The men that did this in your parish were sodomites. Not all men - those homosexuals suffering with same-sex attraction (SSA) - are pederasts [men having sex with post-pubescent boys verses paedophiles which have sex with prepubescent boys or girls] but all pederasts are homosexuals! You've heard of NAMBLA, right? The sex abuse crimes committed by priests, except in rare cases, were crimes committed by sodomite priests upon boys that had reached puberty. Homosexual sex with post-pubescent, virginal teen-age boys has historical fact dating back to ancient Greece and Rome. It is not new. Even one thousand years ago in his monumental work Liber Gomorrhianus" St. Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church said, “For God’s sake, why do you damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery ambition?” 

You ask, for authority, I give it to you. Where is yours?

Caution - use of certain terminologies that some may find disturbing



4.3: The homoheresy movement has succeeded in making one think that it's all about love and curtains and nice kitchen appliances and the colours of paint on the walls and "his and his towels" [JB this is from Fox] and that anyone taking an opposing view is a hater. They have made people think that it is about tolerance and acceptance. It is not. It is about destroying marriage and the family and forcing the acceptance of sexual perversion on the rest of us. It is about promoting a pattern of life filled with guilt and self-loathing and normalising it. It is evil and those who are manifestly trapped within it have been given over to Satan. Fisting, rimming, anal and oral copulation, urination, fecal play, slurp-ramping, glory holes, public bath-houses for sex and other deviant behaviours and public nudity is not acceptable. The body is a "temple of the Holy Spirit" - it is a sin against God and a crime against nature. Why should I care? I care for people's souls. Every sin affects the world, mine and yours. It destroys grace and dulls the senses. Sexual sins of fornication, adultery, sodomy, pornography, masturbation and so on create a need to go further and further for satisfaction Pornography of homosexual and heterosexual nature is one of the biggest crises facing children and youth, it is rampant. Men and yes, women -- Catholic men and women watch pornography regularly spending trillions of dollars on it and blind to the damage that it causes to their souls and psyche. Pure evil. Is this hate? No! It is in fact love to speak the truth. Men wear diapers because they have lost control of the anal sphincter! They die younger than men not engaging in sodomy. They have greater degrees of depression. Their suicide rates are higher. The rates of syphilis and gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases are higher and more virulent to say nothing of AIDS. The abuse between same-sex couples is manifestly higher than heterosexual. Monogamy is rare. 

4.4: When you say that sodomy is not a choice, you are wrong. We all have a choice whether to sin or not. We do not have to have sexual relations with anyone. The condition and causes of SSA is not fully understood but, nobody is born with a "gay-gene." A loving God who creates us and condemns this behaviour would not create us in this manner. It is a learnt behaviour - psychological, emotional and environmental. People have freed themselves from the behaviour and I know men that have. They may still have some form of SSA they do not act out on it. Some marry and become fathers. Some dedicate a life to God offering up their suffering for the sake of their souls. The Church, as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not label people as "Gay" notwithstanding certain imprudent remarks by the current Bishop of Rome. We are not defined by our sexual action. There are only two genders, the rest are straight from the pit of Hell. The desire to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex is "intrinsically disordered" not the person, the desire as the Church teaches magisterially and definitively in the Catechism, is disordered, the act is mortally sinful. It is one of the four sins "crying out to God for justice." The acts of sodomy, fisting, rimming, oral-copulation, sado-masochism, mutilation of the gentiles through surgery along with adultery, fornication, masturbation and bestiality are sins against God and nature and the unrepentant will end up in Hell, period.

4.5: The word homosexual is just over one hundred years old -- 1892. It is an English translation from Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis. Of course, Jesus did not use the word, the word did not exist! Sodomy is used throughout Holy Scripture and it is the sin to describe unnatural sexual acts, usually between men, but can be broader. Jesus did not need to use the term; everyone knew in first century Judaism that it was a sin and an "abomination to the LORD." The first century apostles and the early church fathers knew it.

4.6 Jesus is God. He was "from the beginning." Jesus is the WORD MADE FLESH. He was active in the Old Testament, He was the WORD of God Who came forth in the Blessed Mother's womb. Do you believe this? If you are a Catholic you must believe this. Jesus said plenty about sodomy.

4.7 These verses are taken from the New Revised Standard Version -- Catholic Edition used in the lectionary in Canada. 
  • Leviticus. 18:22. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
  • Leviticus. 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
  • Romans 1:24-27. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
  • Jude 1:7. Just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, (NOTE: NOT INHOSPITALITY - St. Jude would know, he spoke to Jesus and was his cousin) serve as an example by undergoing punishment of eternal fire.
4.8: Jesus did say these things. Jesus is God the Son who is, was and always will be. He is the WORD as stated above. It was the WORD through the HOLY SPIRIT  that inspired Holy Moses and Saints Paul and Jude to write that which you read above, or do you not believe this? Are you questioning the clear and unambiguous teaching of Holy Scripture?

5.0: You further wrote that, "as far as the practice of marriage goes, I assume you are a aware that the Catholic Church (not God, Jesus or otherwise) decided that this should become a sacrament in the medieval times. Who are you, or I or anyone else to say what constitutes a holy, sanctified marriage?" You also indicate that "once upon a time you "studied medieval history at university." So, your professors, many biased against the Catholic Church are to be believed but the Church is not? Did university teach you at least to think and research? The bible tells us to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" as can be found in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Why would the St. Paul tell us to "prove" it if he was not certain that the truth could be proven? I'll take St. Paul over your professor.

5.1: With all charity and respect I must ask this question, "Are you really a Catholic?"  I must also ask a more important question; "Who put in your mind the doubts of the truth that would cause you to make such statements?" You have proven my point, that you and the people of your parish (I assume that Our Lady of Grace is your parish) have every right to be angry. The problem is, you are angry with me for shining a light and writing the truth when you should be angry with those who were responsible for forming you as a Catholic and who failed. They will be held responsible for this on their judgement day "for to whom much is given, much is expected" and "it is better that a millstone be tied around their necks and they be thrown into the bottom of the sea rather than to scandalise one of my little ones." We were once and in many ways still remain, "little ones." However, you will also be held responsible notwithstanding your false teachers. You are not a child, you are presumably Confirmed by the Holy Spirit. You went to university. There is the Internet for you to do research. You have no excuse - none of us does. Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do you believe what the Church teaches? If not, why are you here? If your conscience cannot abide the truth, why do you stay? How can you hold false beliefs and receive Holy Communion?

5.2: Do you believe that the Catholic Church -- One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic -- was established on earth by Jesus Christ as His Bride and from which grace will flow to the whole earth to gather mankind within Her to bring all who will come to Heaven? Do you believe that to do this, Our Blessed Lord established it under Peter to whom he gave the "keys of the kingdom" and that what Peter -- the Church "binds on earth shall be bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven?" Do you believe that the Pope is in the line of Peter and that the bishops are the Apostles of our time to carry out the work of salvation for you and I through Holy Mother Church? Do you believe that "outside the Church there is no salvation?" If you do not believe these truths as revealed by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Authority, then you have not been properly formed as a Catholic and it is not surprising that you would hold the views that you do.

5.3: Last Sunday was Marriage Sunday in the Archdiocese of Toronto. The Deacon at the Mass where I chanted Saturday evening referred to the Book of Genesis where God gave Eve to Adam and this was the marriage from which the earth would be filled. Let us look at some verses from Scripture, again from the NRSV-CE. 


  • Matthew 19: 1-11 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.  Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there. Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery. His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.”

5.4: Note that twice Jesus says "at the beginning" (some translations use 'in'). What is He referring to? He is referring to the first three words of the Holy Bible in Genesis - "In/at the beginning." In other words, God always intended that marriage was something ordained from Him to be "holy and sanctified" quoting yourself.

5.5: To say that the Church made marriage a "sacrament in medieval times" is simply untrue What are you referring to and where do you get such fallacy? Who told you this? Show me the proof? Protestants were similarly vexed with the believe that "transubstantiation" was also a medieval construct. Wrong. The transformation of the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ - body, blood, soul and divinity, was always believed from the very beginning. It was defined with a word "transubstantiation" by St. Thomas Aquinas. It was always believed. The Church - East and West - always believed in the Dormition and Assumption of Our Blessed Mother but it was not defined as dogma until 1954!

5.6: Marriage between a man and a woman was ordained by God from "the beginning." The Church ordered it as a Sacrament from the early days -- a Sacrament not imposed by the priest or deacon but exchanged by the man and woman. It has also long been recognised that our protestant brethren generally maintain two of the Seven Sacraments, the first being Baptism the second being Holy Matrimony, between two Protestants, not with a Catholic. Before syphilis rotted his mind, King Henry VIII was given the title by the Pope of "Defender of the Faith," a title still held by Elizabeth II, Regina and granted, ironically, because of his defense of the Seven Sacraments against the heretic, Martin Luther. The Church of Rome, and the other autocephalous Churches have always from the beginning that matrimony was a sacrament. It has been a ritual in every culture, even pagan, from the beginning of time. The abomination of which two men or two women marrying is a pathetic and disgusting attempt to normalise a perversion and undermine our culture. You cannot re-write 6000 years of human history and culture by an Act of Parliament! You cannot undo what is within the natural law by political correctness.

5.6: You and I have every right to say what is a "holy and sanctified" marriage. I have every right because of my faith and grace of Baptism and duty of Confirmation. I have the authority to do so under "referential authority." I'm surprised that they did not teach this to you in university. I refer to the authority of Holy Scripture, the authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authority of the writings of the Popes such as Familiaris Consortio by a declared Saint - John Paul II and so on. As a rational man given knowledge and natural law, I can refer to 6000 years of recorded human history of every culture. Our native people in Canada the Aztecs and others - they all had marriage between a man and a woman and they did not have the Holy Bible! It is therefore as much culture and history as it is faith and sacrament! Human society has always held marriage as a sacred act, even when it did not know God.

6.0: Pope Benedict XVI wrote an Encyclical called Caritas in Veritate, Charity (Love) in Truth, you may wish to read it. Love is found in speaking and writing the truth. If I told you what you wanted to hear even though I knew it was wrong and would deceive you, would I be showing love? If I saw you attempting to put your finger in a light socket and did nothing, even though I knew that it could harm or even kill you, would I be showing you love? 

5.8: Must there not be order in the Church? Must bishops not act appropriately to protect the integrity of the truth, the sacraments and the law of the Church and the Province for which they are responsible? You keep excusing what happened with stories about "feelings." Yes, love, love, love. Absolutely. Saint Paul tells us that "love covers a multitude of sins." But you cannot have love without truth.

Jesus did not come to "destroy the law but to fulfil it." When he cautioned the people about the Pharisees he warned the people to follow them in "the law" but not to act "as they do." 

Make no mistake, you have been manipulated. You've been manipulated by priests, by teachers, by media and by those who would misconstrue the truth.

You should be angry but not with Vox.

If you wish to write me privately to explain any of this further, for reasoned explanation or catechesis or to find a priest that can help you, please write me at voxcantoris@rogers.com.

Monday, 9 February 2015

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition - BBC 1994

I too shall resist! - Vox

From Rorate Caeli Blog

Source: 13h15 le dimanche, Sunday program of French public television network France 2, broadcast on Sunday, February 8, 2015 (title "N'oubliez pas de prier pour moi" - "Do not forget to pray for me"). 

Transcript begins at 8:17 and ends at 14:55. [Updated: see video below]


***
[Presenter:] Since then [the Christmas Address to the Curia dedicated to the "infirmities" of the Roman Curia], the Cardinals have receded into silence, but some remain with a heavy heart. One of the most influential of these has finally accepted to receive us. Cardinal Burke is an American, ultra-conservative, and close to former Pope Benedict XVI.

- [Interviewer:] We are very glad to meet you, that you could grant us a little bit of your time! You are a great admirer of Benedict XVI?

- [Burke, in French:] Oh, yes!

- [Interviewer:] You have his complete works?

- [Burke, in French:] Of all the qualities of Benedict XVI, I think that the greatest is the one of being a master of the faith. / [In Italian:] When there is confusion, protest, I always turn towards him, towards his writings on the liturgy, but also on other doctrinal matters. Now I must get used to a new pope and -

- [Interviewer:] Is it difficult? Sincerely.

[Presenter:] The Cardinal is not seen favorably [lit. "in odor of sanctity"] in the eyes of the new pope. He was in the room on the day Francis threw his darts against the Curia.

- [Burke, in Italian:] I have heard here and there some jokes among the cardinals: "how many infirmities do you have?" It will be remarked upon for some time.

[Presenter:] The opposition between both men goes back to the month of October, at the time of the Synod on the family. In the order of the day, some matters provoke turmoil among the bishops, such as communion to remarried divorcees or the recognition of homosexual couples.

[Recording of Francis in the Synod:] "A cardinal wrote to me saying, 'too bad that some cardinals have not had the courage to say certain things. This is not good. This is not synodality. Because it is necessary to say all those things that, in the Lord, it is felt that must be said."

[Presenter:] Several conservative cardinals take up a crusade in order to defend the traditional family - among them Müller, Brandmüller, and Caffarra. As for Cardinal Burke, he takes the helm of the rebels. The debates are very lively, heated.

-[Burke, in Italian:] I cannot accept that communion be given to a person who is living in an irregular union, because it is adultery. On the matter of persons of the same sex, this has nothing to do with matrimony. This is a suffering that some persons have, of being attracted - against nature, sexually - to persons of the same sex. Those people, we must help them to live chastely. But there is no relation to marriage and family, it is a separate issue.

[Presenter:] The response to the Supreme Pontiff is clear: it is a rejection of what Francis had said in July 2013.

[Recording of Francis in the Airplane interview of July 2013]: "If someone is gay, and he searches the Lord, and has good will, who am I to judge him?"

-[Interviewer:] How do you intend to place pope Francis on the good path?

-[Burke, in Italian] On this, also one must be very attentive regarding the power of the pope. The classic formulation is that, "the Pope has the plenitude, the fullness, of power." This is true. But it is not absolute power. His power is at the service of the doctrine of the faith. And thus the Pope does not have the power to change teaching, doctrine.

-[Interviewer:] In a somewhat provocative way, can we say that the true guardian of doctrine is you, and not pope Francis?

-[Burke, in Italian:] [Smiles, shakes his head] We must, let us leave aside the matter of the Pope. In our faith, it is the truth of doctrine that guides us.

-[Interviewer:] If Pope Francis insists on this path, what will you do?

-[Burke, in Italian:] I will resist. I cannot do anything else. There is no doubt that this is a difficult time, this is clear, this is clear.

-[Interviewer:] Is it painful?

-[Burke, in Italian:] Yes.

-[Interviewer:] Worrisome?

-[Burke, in Italian:] Yes.

-[Interviewer:] According to you, today, is the Catholic Church under threat as an institution?

-[Burke, in Italian:] The Lord assured us, as he assured Saint Peter in the Gospel, that the forces of evil will not prevail -- non praevalebunt, we say in Latin. That the forces of evil will not achieve, let us say, victory over the Church.

-[Interviewer, looking at a portrait of Francis in the Cardinal's study:] Well then, Francis is your friend?

-[Burke, in Italian:] [Laughter] I would not want to make of the pope an enemy, certainly!
***

[Update (Feb. 9): thanks to the reader who included our words above as subtitles in the video below:]

Saturday, 7 February 2015

BREAKING : Catholic Civil Rights League - response to Supreme Court decision in favour of physician assisted suicide

Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL)
The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) decries the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Carter striking down Criminal Code provisions against physician assisted suicide - Canada enters a new era of 'suicide relativism'.

TORONTO, ON February 6 2015 - The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) warns of the dangers of a new era of 'suicide relativism' in Canada, following the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Carter to strike down the Criminal Code provisions against physician assisted suicide.

The Supreme Court's ruling now leaves legislatures and provincial health disciplinary mechanisms to sort out the messy business of competing conscience claims, let alone the parameters of 'medical aid in dying'.

By this decision, the Court has re-asserted its claim to the title 'Policy Maker of the Year', as recognized by the MacDonald-Laurier Institute in December, 2014.  The Supreme Court has moved our country from a position where suicide was opposed outright, to a jurisdiction where suicide is to be made available on request, subject to future unknown conditions.

The Court overruled its previous decision from 1993 in Rodriguez, in which the same provisions of the Criminal Code were upheld, by a 5-4 majority, asserting in today's ruling that the law and factual matrix have changed in the past 22 years.

The Court failed to mention that nine different motions or legislative attempts have been raised in Parliament in that time frame, with six separate votes on the issue, all of which rejected efforts to change the law, recognizing the risks to the most highly vulnerable.  In fact, in 2011 and in 2012 Parliament gave its near unanimous support for a national anti-suicide prevention policy.  The Supreme Court has now undercut such legislative enactments.

Given that history, Parliament will need to give serious consideration to the Charter's notwithstanding clause, to allow further time for serious reflection on the merits of what has been introduced as a new regime in Canada.  A one year suspension in an election year is unreasonable.

While the Court has suspended its decision for one year to allow legislatures and provincial health care professional Colleges time to consider legislative changes, that time frame may be insufficient to allow all of the various public institutions to address the challenging demands involved.

The CCRL sought that clear language be provided by the Court to assert the primacy of conscientious rights of healthcare professionals.  The Supreme Court stepped back from making any such pronouncement, preferring to allow a future 'reconciliation' of competing rights claims.

Such concerns are not limited to healthcare professionals.  Chaplains, lawyers, and other counselors will be confronted with how to deal with requests for assistance on suicide in the months ahead.

The Court has struck down these provisions of the Criminal Code with severe limitations on any new provisions to re-criminalize particular forms of assisted suicide. The court has asserted that any future law must accept situations based on irremediable medical conditions and where there may be intolerable suffering.  In its reasons, the Court stated, 'We make no pronouncement on other situations where physician?assisted dying may be sought'.  However, as has been seen in other jurisdictions, efforts to impose safeguards rarely limit the availability of assisted suicide. By its own language, the Supreme Court leaves open the likelihood of further challenges to any draft legislation.

For example, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association supported the decriminalization of these provisions primarily on the basis of personal autonomy - i.e. if a competent patient sought to be killed, the medical professional should assist, regardless of the underlying medical condition. 

In the state of Washington, research has shown that the introduction of physician assisted suicide quickly is enlarged over time, such that individuals who may have years to live are encouraged to take their life prematurely.  Assisted suicide regimes lead to abuse of the aged, especially from those who stand to inherit. Will the next push be to expand euthanasia to non-terminal individuals, or the allowance of individuals other than doctors to prescribe death drugs?

The Court also awarded the BC Civil Liberties Association full indemnity costs, such that taxpayers are obliged to pay what will likely exceed $1 million for this challenge at three court levels.

The focus of section 241 of the Criminal Code is on the person who assists in a suicide.  The CCRL's intervention emphasized that most Canadian healthcare providers consider physician-assisted death immoral or unethical for reasons of science, conscience or religion. These healthcare providers may now be confronted by demands that they directly or indirectly participate in what they consider to be immoral actions.

Medical Colleges in Saskatchewan and Ontario are currently in the process of addressing such demands, including the contentious issue of mandatory referral by objecting physicians to another doctor, which the CCRL has asserted requires an objecting physician to participate in 'wrong'.  Other provincial Colleges have already mandated such referrals, exposing doctors to professional disciplinary charges.  Can migration from the profession in Canada be far behind?

At a minimum, the CCRL asserts the need for robust protection for the freedoms of everyone who declines or opposes physician-assisted death, or refuses to refer patients for such procedures, for reasons of conscience or religion.
About the CCRL

Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) (
www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. The CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization with a large nationwide membership base. The CCRL is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.
For further information:

Christian Domenic Elia, PhD
Executive Director,
416-466-8244;
@CCRLtweets 

When did Catholics become so stupid?

An anonymous comment was left in the box at a "Sad state of affairs in Aurora." 

I really want to be charitable, but I'm finding it difficult. Perhaps you may wish to explain it to our poor friend.
Anonymous said...Guess what? This isn't the 1700's. We are in 2015 and the world changes and so will churches. If the church doesn't change the catholic population will continue to decline. Is it a bad thing that people and children enjoy church? A bunch of crazies on this site that need serious help. To sit there and pass judgement on situation it sounds like you have no personal experience with is a sin. Do you remember when black people were not allowed in churches. Is it ok that they changed those rules?
Friday, 6 February 2015 at 21:31:00 GMT-5  
When did Catholic become this stupid?

Friday, 6 February 2015

Petition to the Parliament of Canada to STOP Euthanasia!

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

PETITION


To: Canada's Members of Parliament and Senators

I urge you to stand up for vulnerable Canadians and oppose the Supreme Court's dreadful ruling overturning Canada's prohibition on physician-assisted suicide.

Canadians pride themselves on being a caring, welcoming nation, a country that defends the vulnerable, yet this ruling sends the message to the weak and infirm that their lives are not worth protecting.

This Supreme Court ruling is merely the first step down a slippery slope that leads to the heinous practices we've seen increasingly in places like Belgium and the Netherlands. In Belgium, euthanasia is now permissible even for children. Please don't let that happen to our country.

I urge you to use your parliamentary authority to invoke section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "notwithstanding clause") and overrule the Supreme Court decision. Canada needs a law that will protect all Canadians.

Sincerely,
[The undersigned]


Tell Canada’s Parliament to block Supreme Court ruling legalizing assisted suicide by using 'notwithstanding clause’: petition

5 Supporters 19 Minutes Ago
Featured Image
Canada’s Supreme Court has just overturned the country’s ban on assisted suicide, meaning that doctors will now be allowed to actively participate in bringing about the deaths of their patients.
If the colleges of physicians in places like Ontario and Saskatchewan have their way, doctors could very well be forced to end their patients' lives.
This shocking ruling goes against the clear will of Parliament, which overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to legalize euthanasia in 2010 by a vote of 226 to 59.
The Supreme Court has given Parliament a year to enact a new law. But Parliament has the power to act right now - by invoking the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ little-used “notwithstanding clause,” which allows Parliament to override a court ruling.
We need to urge Parliament to invoke the “notwithstanding clause” and craft a law that will protect vulnerable Canadians from this heinous ruling.